At last, the Armenian publicity paid attention to this issue. In addition, Ms. Naira Hayrumyan who understands clearly who is an enemy and who is a friend, and who has just gone for a walk asked this question directly. In reality, this issue worries the Armenian political class for one reason – how kindly the West treats Serzh Sargsyan and how kindly the West treats the actual and non-actual opposition.
The group headed by Levon Ter-Petrosyan who already has a problem of identity, as well as regarding its name, does not care for the positive or negative aspects of the policy of the ruling regime in Armenia. Its figures judge as follows: Turkish-Armenian normalization is a positive policy as long as they do it themselves; the return of Karabakh to the enemy is possible and necessary if they do it themselves. This is the only logic of Levon Ter-Petrosyan and his supporters.
Currently the “umbrella issue” is on the arena which the United States, NATO and the EU are trying to prepare for Serzh Sargsyan (it is not known whether it is possible).
What strange developments. For a long time Serzh Sargsyan performed the duty of the minister of foreign affairs of Russia, and in Armenia nobody else has cooperated with Russia so long and so closely, in different situations, both in Armenia and Russia. In addition, everyone knows that both Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan would never have political success were they not part of the elite of the Armenian National Movement.
After Levon Ter-Petrosyan Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan were the second and third persons in the ANM by the hookup of duties they performed. Were Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s group in government now, they would be licking NATO’s boots if they had been allowed to. Now what do they need to question? Cooperation of Armenia with NATO and the European Union? This is not a rewarding job, and more importantly, who needs arguments to discredit this policy? Why did the West choose Serzh Sargsyan? Ms. Naira Hayrumyan, this fragile lady, asked a question which will remain urgent for a long time.
A lot (but not everything) is revealed in comparison. If Mikhail Saakashvili had trampled his citizens with tanks on Rustaveli Avenue, after some criticism he would remain an insider for the Americans and Europeans. So what is the difficulty of understanding the situation of Serzh Sargsyan and why has the West chosen him? Because he set to normalize relations with Armenia and Turkey? Because the United States and NATO would like to pull out the last pillow from under Russia in the region?
If the problem is viewed in this aspect, we will have to deal with another portion of illusions relating to the regional and global policy. Serzh Sargsyan clearly signaled to the West his readiness for such non-ordinary steps as recognition of the state border of Turkey. Thus Serzh Sargsyan made a double mistake. First, he assumed that he is able to conduct this policy till the end and fulfill his duties. Second, the Armenian president apparently did not understand that neither the Americans, nor the Europeans need the prospect of this normalization.
Armenia takes up the function of factor of restraint of Turkish expansion, including in the European direction. The lack of understanding was the result of highly limited diplomatic and political activities of the Armenian diplomats. What is the fault of the diplomats if such political geniuses as the opposition leaders think and judge absolutely like Serzh Sargsyan and his team? The Americans and the Europeans saved Armenia and its president by thwarting the process of settlement, conveying to Turkey that they are not going to close the “Armenian cause”.
Who needs a country and a president who are Turkey’s clients?
It would be good to demonstrate to Russia the vulnerability of its relations with the main partner in the southern direction but the West is not so mean to limit its policy with such insignificant goals. In this geopolitical situation when all the figures in the region have been eventually laid out, there is only one who could influence the process in sharp situations. Armenia interests the West not as a possibly isolated and voiceless object in the region but as a close partner of Russia’s who actively takes part in the activities of the CSTO, as well as a partner of Iran.
Russia and Iran are important landmarks for the geopolitics of the West, and any country on the orbit of these two states will attract special attention. The West’s policy on Russia presupposes subjection, not annihilation, and this is the core circumstance of this large-scale game.
Serzh Sargsyan is a “unique” political figure. His team held elections with clear advantages for the ruling party when it was almost impossible to do it, as well as distributed seats to opposition companies possibly fairly. The ruling regime does not shoot people in the street and does not spend money on supporting dissidents, does not reject the talks over Karabakh with Azerbaijan despite a degrading position and regular killings of our people at the border, the Armenian government has done nothing to accuse the West of supporting the Barbaric regime in Azerbaijan and the hypocrisy of Turkey’s policy, and finally staying on the Russian orbit the regime sincerely wishes to promote cooperation with NATO and the European Union, a populous army is kept under control in the economic crisis.
This is just a gift for the West which is mostly interested in partnership with providers, not consumers of security.
Let us assume now the president of Armenia is Robert Kocharyan who conducts a similar policy of rapprochement with the West and he definitely does it, and nobody has reason to doubt. Or maybe his foreign minister Vartan Oskanian would not implement such a policy?
The British might not be satisfied with Robert Kocharyan’s personality, while the Russians with Vartan Oskanian, but these are trifles which do not influence policy, hence, the question has a comprehensive answer – the problem must be solved possibly fast, and nobody will expect an ideal politician in the office of president of Armenia. The West has what it has.
However, we only asked Naira Hayrumyan’s question why the West chose Serzh Sargsyan. But there is a question which is more important. Why did Serzh Sargsyan choose the West? Perhaps this question is more interesting.
But the problem cannot be solved through questions and answers. The problem is somewhere else. Who could cheer the death of our people on the border? Who could hope for the recognition of the border with Turkey? Who could hope for return of our land to the enemy? Who could build up their logic on the principle the worse, the better? And who could hope that their time would come, their government would be formed, the next kleptocracy would be established? Only scoundrels of Yerevan. You can’t count on this!
Comments